Allen MacNeill’s Augustine and Gould’s NOMA are obviously attempts to delegitimize religion and Scripture as sources of knowledge—comfortable fantasies and useful fictions maybe—but not public knowledge, as Phillip Johnson so astutely perceived.[blah, blah, snip]

That whole thread is pretty much a concerted YEC effort to pile-on the Dr. Dr at this point. Recommended.

So now, if Behe can only explain common descent to Dembski, we will have a pair of theistic evolutionists. They and Francis Collins can sit around a handy burning bush making smores and singing "Kumbiya."

That asshole Ahmanson will have wasted millions, which given his freaky desires is a GOOD thing.

Edited by Dr.GH on Oct. 15 2009,21:59

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

It’s one reason that, last I checked, survivalist James Wesley Rawles’ HOW TO SURVIVE THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT: TACTICS, TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNCERTAIN TIMES was doing better on Amazon.com than Richard Dawkins’ THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH: THE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION (other reasons no doubt include that Dawkins’ book is sheer dreck from the standpoint of current evolutionary theory — see here).

Wah Wah Wah - a book that's "sheer dreck" is outselling every single book I ever wrong 1000:1. Wah wah wah. At least this other book is selling better....

Quote

So why am I relating this story here at UD? In fact, it is relevant to intelligent design (ID). In the past, American Constitutional safeguards on free speech seemed to me sufficient to allow ID to win the day provided it could prove its case. Of that I’m no longer so sure (not that it can’t prove its case, but of the Constitutional safeguards). Over two years ago, I reported here at UD about the European Council’s denunciation of ID as an assault on human rights. It’s not hard to imagine that ID, because it may be construed as implying that humans were intended to operate within certain constraints, might be seen as challenging certain lifestyles and thus as constituting a “hate crime.” Note that I’m not saying that this is in fact an implication of ID (indeed, my own interest is primarily in developing ID as a scientific research program). My point rather is that critics intent on shutting ID down may do so by challenging its right to fall under free speech. And if Constitutional safeguards stand in the way of this challenge, it may be possible to leapfrog the U.S. Constitution and have courts outside the U.S. attempt to shut the discussion down.

Ironic really that Dumbski talks about leapfrogging the U.S. Constitution when he wants ID to leapfrog over the laboratory into the classroom.Tard

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

"It's very suggestive as to how basic cellular processes are taking place, in terms of information storage and retrieval,"

Expect "Information", "Storage" and "Retrieval" to be bolded, but no actual explanation of how this relates to ID other then "ooh, isn't the designer clever?"

Quote

The work, reported in this week's issue of Science, may also explain how cells control which stretches of DNA are transcribed and which remain silent. Furthermore, the new technique could allow researchers to study how gene expression changes as cells develop or become cancerous, says Thomas Tullius, professor of chemistry at Boston University, who was not part of the research team.

"It's a whole new view of the chromosome and its place in the cell, and it's a view we've never had before," says Tullius, who studies the structure of DNA.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

"It's very suggestive as to how basic cellular processes are taking place, in terms of information storage and retrieval,"

Expect "Information", "Storage" and "Retrieval" to be bolded, but no actual explanation of how this relates to ID other then "ooh, isn't the designer clever?"

Quote

The work, reported in this week's issue of Science, may also explain how cells control which stretches of DNA are transcribed and which remain silent. Furthermore, the new technique could allow researchers to study how gene expression changes as cells develop or become cancerous, says Thomas Tullius, professor of chemistry at Boston University, who was not part of the research team.

"It's a whole new view of the chromosome and its place in the cell, and it's a view we've never had before," says Tullius, who studies the structure of DNA.

It’s one reason that, last I checked, survivalist James Wesley Rawles’ HOW TO SURVIVE THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT: TACTICS, TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNCERTAIN TIMES was doing better on Amazon.com than Richard Dawkins’ THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH: THE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION (other reasons no doubt include that Dawkins’ book is sheer dreck from the standpoint of current evolutionary theory — see here).

Wah Wah Wah - a book that's "sheer dreck" is outselling every single book I ever wrong 1000:1. Wah wah wah. At least this other book is selling better....

Quote

So why am I relating this story here at UD? In fact, it is relevant to intelligent design (ID). In the past, American Constitutional safeguards on free speech seemed to me sufficient to allow ID to win the day provided it could prove its case. Of that I’m no longer so sure (not that it can’t prove its case, but of the Constitutional safeguards). Over two years ago, I reported here at UD about the European Council’s denunciation of ID as an assault on human rights. It’s not hard to imagine that ID, because it may be construed as implying that humans were intended to operate within certain constraints, might be seen as challenging certain lifestyles and thus as constituting a “hate crime.” Note that I’m not saying that this is in fact an implication of ID (indeed, my own interest is primarily in developing ID as a scientific research program). My point rather is that critics intent on shutting ID down may do so by challenging its right to fall under free speech. And if Constitutional safeguards stand in the way of this challenge, it may be possible to leapfrog the U.S. Constitution and have courts outside the U.S. attempt to shut the discussion down.

Ironic really that Dumbski talks about leapfrogging the U.S. Constitution when he wants ID to leapfrog over the laboratory into the classroom.Tard

Of course, the European Council does not restrict free speech. However, it urges its members to keep ID out of school.

It’s one reason that, last I checked, survivalist James Wesley Rawles’ HOW TO SURVIVE THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT: TACTICS, TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNCERTAIN TIMES was doing better on Amazon.com than Richard Dawkins’ THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH: THE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION (other reasons no doubt include that Dawkins’ book is sheer dreck from the standpoint of current evolutionary theory — see here).

Wah Wah Wah - a book that's "sheer dreck" is outselling every single book I ever wrong 1000:1. Wah wah wah. At least this other book is selling better....

And unfortunately for Dumbski, actually checking his irrelevant assertion (something highly unlikely for the inhabitants of UD's Carnival of Creo Credulity to bother to do) reveals that Dawkins' book is at #19 and the survivalist whatever is at #60.

--------------"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers------"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

And unfortunately for Dumbski, actually checking his irrelevant assertion (something highly unlikely for the inhabitants of UD's Carnival of Creo Credulity to bother to do) reveals that Dawkins' book is at #19 and the survivalist whatever is at #60.

That is some beautiful fact checking!!!111 - But Demski's stated position is that he doen't need the "pathetic level of detail" that goes on the the real, (non UD) grown-up world.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

Scientists say a very rare find of some 20 fossilized pterodactyls has produced the first clear evidence of a controversial theory of evolution.

Quote

Traditional evolutionary theory suggests that one feature -- a tail for instance -- would slowly evolve over time.

Quote

The researchers say more study is needed to substantiate the idea of that evolution could occur relatively quickly, and that whole parts of a plant or animal's body could change at once.

Emphasis mine.

More evidence that anything spewing forth from Dennis-O's mouth about the mainstream media being in "Darwin's camp" should be met with a swift slap to the face. Alas, if only I could tell her coocher from her face.

Edit: Dr^dr is STILL bawwwwing about Dawkins' book? Good Christ. Someone who's still alive over there please ask him for a comparative flowchart of the sales of Dawkins' books vs the sales of the good Dr^dr's books over the course of a 30-year period.

I'd like to see Dembski fight a landslidea tornado the pavement at 600 miles per hour.

Quote

The old "ID is science because evolutionists are lecherous sluts" gambit.

Or is he implying that evo is teh ghey.

Well, simple logic demands that since the Hebrew war god Yahweh EVILOOSHUN created everything, homosexuality must obviously be attributed to the Hebrew war god Yahweh EVILOOSHUN.

--------------If you are not:Leviathanplease Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

That asshole Ahmanson will have wasted millions, which given his freaky desires is a GOOD thing.

Isn't he a democrat now? :O

A Democrat? Oh Noes!!11!1!

Pretty sure he isn't. I am in the south county, but we are not that big a county. Ahmanson has been most obsessed with gays for the last decade or so. The deal is that nearly any organization will kiss his behind if he gives them enough money.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

I read through the thread you guys are talking about and the saddest thing jumped out at me:

"tragic mishap10/14/20095:34 pmOf course, I’m willing to accept an old age and common descent and all that for purposes of conversation, but when it comes down to what I actually believe, I’m betting on Genesis."

The Bible thumpers have people so scared of going to hell that they disbelieve what they know is correct in the hopes that they will go to heaven.

At least that's what I get out of this guys post.

Yes, don't they just love a chance to exit from reality and bathe in bibleness? I liked tm's contribution where he jumps in abandoning all reason:

Quote

As a YEC, I never really believed the only reason or even the biggest reason for that view is to preserve this classical theology. In fact, I can’t really recall that ever entering my thinking. Others might think that way, but I assure you I do not. My own reason is quite simply that when asking a historical question, the oldest accounts are quite literally the closest to the truth. It seems rather arrogant to me to trust the modern interpretations of the evidence rather than to trust the accounts of people who were much closer to the actual events than we were. Especially considering the ridiculous level of error in modern science in relation to truth in the absolute sense.

I'm having a bit of trouble here - on one level tragey is right - the value of eyewitness accounts and all that, but is he really telling us that the further in time we move from an event, the wronger about it we become?

The last sentence "Especially considering the ridiculous level of error in modern science in relation to truth in the absolute sense." magnifies the strangeness. In the context of what precedes it, he seems to be implying that science is getting further and further away from reality as time goes by. Flat earth > Ptolemy > Copernicus > Newton > Einstein. After all, the Babylonians were closer to the beginning of the universe than we are.

If people like Paul Williams fall prey to our global secularized culture (especially when it is able to bypass the U.S. 1st Amendment), then we are not far downstream.

I can understand how one country's laws reaching citizens of another country is a contentious issue, but how is it a manifestation of "secularized culture"? There are some attempts being made by some members of the UN to crack down on "defamation of religion"; hardly an example of a secularist transnational assault on free expression.

And he goes on. And on, and on...

Quote

Over two years ago, I reported here at UD about the European Council’s denunciation of ID as an assault on human rights. It’s not hard to imagine that ID, because it may be construed as implying that humans were intended to operate within certain constraints, might be seen as challenging certain lifestyles and thus as constituting a “hate crime.”

And over two years ago the chilling extent of the "denunciation of ID as an assault on human rights" was explained to him:

Quote

“If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.” In so much as teaching creationism can violate freedom of religion, this is much the same position taken by virtually every American court which has considered the matter in the last 40 years or so.

But to Information Theory's Isaac Newton it's a step on the road to making ID a hate crime and crushing the US Constitution.

--------------"Even though I am not a creationist by any reasonable definition ... the Cambrian explosion was doubtless the work of God in my view but I would say that of all creation." - Denyse O'Leary, Oct 17, 2009.

What happened in recent years in Canada was that progressive limitations on free speech due to “human rights” concerns made it difficult to discuss issues like who has access to nuclear materials today and what are their loyalties. I say bosh to it all. If a person is smart enough to know what to do with nuclear materials, he should be able to look after his own human rights, and should expect hard questions without shouting “racism!!”.

But Williams is not being prosecuted any kind of racism or human rights laws. He is being sued for libel by McMaster University because he claimed they mismanaged a nuclear reactor and lost a load of nuclear material; claims which McMaster thinks are defamatory. It is a civil case about alleged defamation, not a criminal case about alleged racism.You'd have thought that someone who helped write the Canadian Constitution would realise this.

--------------"Even though I am not a creationist by any reasonable definition ... the Cambrian explosion was doubtless the work of God in my view but I would say that of all creation." - Denyse O'Leary, Oct 17, 2009.

“If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.” In so much as teaching creationism can violate freedom of religion, this is much the same position taken by virtually every American court which has considered the matter in the last 40 years or so.

But to Information Theory's Isaac Newton it's a step on the road to making ID a hate crime and crushing the US Constitution.

I crush your Constitution. Crush. Crush. Crush.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Sigmund Freud had immeasurable impact on modern culture. ... His theories (based largely on Darwinism) brought new words into popular vocabulary–id, ego, super-ego, the unconscious.

Freud based his theories "largely on Darwinism"? How in the name of the sweet baby Jesus did Coopedge come up with that?

--------------"Even though I am not a creationist by any reasonable definition ... the Cambrian explosion was doubtless the work of God in my view but I would say that of all creation." - Denyse O'Leary, Oct 17, 2009.

And unfortunately for Dumbski, actually checking his irrelevant assertion (something highly unlikely for the inhabitants of UD's Carnival of Creo Credulity to bother to do) reveals that Dawkins' book is at #19 and the survivalist whatever is at #60.

--------------"Even though I am not a creationist by any reasonable definition ... the Cambrian explosion was doubtless the work of God in my view but I would say that of all creation." - Denyse O'Leary, Oct 17, 2009.

That asshole Ahmanson will have wasted millions, which given his freaky desires is a GOOD thing.

Isn't he a democrat now? :O

A Democrat? Oh Noes!!11!1!

Pretty sure he isn't. I am in the south county, but we are not that big a county. Ahmanson has been most obsessed with gays for the last decade or so. The deal is that nearly any organization will kiss his behind if he gives them enough money.

I seem to recall he did it as a protest or summin, so I'm going to go a digging in the webs just for you:

About six weeks ago, I, a known leader of the Religious Right in California, decided to reregister in the Democratic Party. Why did I do this?

Well, I think I was reading about the budget struggles and threatened purges in the Legislature, and I was getting more and more tired and disgusted of it, and I realized that, had I been a Republican assemblyman, I could have hardly escaped being purged myself. The Republican Party of the State of California seems to have decided to narrow itself down to one article of faith, which may be described as NTESEBREE: No Tax Shall Ever Be Raised Ever Ever.

Now, I'm concerned about this constant tax ratcheting, but I don't think this is the answer. The Democratic Party in California, however, is now so big and diverse and all-inclusive that it has ABSOLUTELY NO PRINCIPLES WHATSOEVER. The Hollywood and San Francisco establishments within the Party may hold to some pretty detestable principles, but the party as a whole?

I have not changed any of my opinions. There is not a single right-wing opinion I hold that some section of the Democratic Party doesn't support it. Opposed to "marriage equality" and freewheeling abortion rights? A lot of Democrats of color will agree. And also many of them will agree on the importance and social justice of vouchers and tax credits for non-government schools. Opposed to fiscal irresponsibility? A lot of Silicon Valley Democrats will probably agree. Opposed to "urban redevelopment" schemes that run small business and residents out of the way for the benefit of the politically important? Got a high view of property rights? Lots of Democrats, including Robert Cruickshank and Senate President Darrell Steinberg, agree with me to a considerable degree.

I describe myself as a "social conservative, an economic moderate," and to a considerable extent a property libertarian. By "economic moderate" I mean that the philosophy of "starve the beast" has failed. The beast will feed welfare and pork and starve infrastructure. If we want to confront irresponsible spending, we have to confront it directly. We have to confront directly the issue of the role of government and what we want it to do and not do. And when we do want government to do something, we want it to have enough money to be able to do what it does pretty well (at least considering it's a government), but we have to fight the mentality of entitlement. The whole mentality entitlement is dangerous. The nearest thing we have to entitlements are property rights, and they are to defined things that actually exist. And all other rights, in the end, depend on property rights; freedom of speech, religion, and press is freedom in a place, or it is nothing. I am not one to radically abolish all welfare programs, as I was in my wild youth - and Social Security and Medicare are welfare, whether you like it or not - but the attitude of entitlement, especially to resources that may not even clearly exist, makes it impossible to pursue any kind of a rational fiscal policy.

I may have made a rash move, in that it will be hard for me to find Democrats that I can actually support - there probably are some, though; social conservatives in the inner city, Democrats with an open mind to vouchers and tax credits and in other ways willing to confront the public sector union beast (I don't consider private-sector unions, for the most part, a serious enemy nowadays), Democrats open to fiscal sanity, Democrats open to property rights rather than "urban redevelopment" social engineering schemes out of City Hall. And by the grace of God, there probably are some!

Yes-- perhaps. They're known as Blue Dogs in the House, and just conservative Democrats in the Senate-- off the top of my head: Ben Nelson (D-NE), Max Baucus (D-MT), Mark Pryor (D-AR, and member of "The Family"-- fun facts await on that Google search), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), etc. And, of course, Joe Leiberman-- not a Blue Dog, per se, but on some issues (say, any given war)he's further to the right than any of the others.

My own mother, now 77, grew up in Nazi Germany, was just outside Berlin at the end of WWII, and lived through the Berlin Airlift.

Does this mean he has German ancestors?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

re #74Actually there are some very interesting exceptions to the second law:it should be noted that, counter-intuitive to materialistic thought, a computer does not consume energy during computation and will only consume energy when information is erased from it. This counter-intuitive fact is formally known as Landauer’s Principle. If a computer had unlimited storage space it would never consume energy. Erasing information is a thermodynamically irreversible process that increases the entropy of a system.Landauer’s principleOf Note: if no information is erased, computation may in principle be achieved which is thermodynamically reversible,,, In 2003 Weiss and Weiss came to the conclusion that information processing by the brain has to be based on Landauer’s principle. In 2008 this has been empirically confirmed by a group of neurobiologists.,,, Landauer’s Principle has also been used as the foundation for a new theory of dark energy, proposed by Gough (2008). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer’s_principleThe fact that our “mind/brain” must work on Landauer’s principle, and is thus semi-immune from the entropy that has such complete dominion over all the “material” of this universe, strongly suggests that our “soul/mind” is a unique entity which is transcendent of the material brain, just as Theism has always suggested. ,,, As well, the ability of a computer to “find answers” without ever, hypothetically, consuming energy strongly suggests that the answers/truth already exist in reality, and in fact, when taken to its logical conclusion, is very suggestive to the fact that the “truth of Logos (John 1:1)” is ultimately the foundation of our “material” reality in the first place.John 1:1-3In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.(of note: “Word” in Greek is “Logos”, and is the root word from which we get our word “Logic”)

This person seems to enjoy the triple comma as much as batshit77. If there'd been a Youtube video link, I'd have been sure they were one and the same, 'cause this post is very much in the ba^77 mode.

As well it should be noted that, counter-intuitive to materialistic thought, a computer does not consume energy during computation and will only consume energy when information is erased from it. This counter-intuitive fact is formally known as Landauer’s Principle:Landauer’s principleOf Note: if no information is erased, computation may in principle be achieved which is thermodynamically reversible,,,, In 2003 Weiss and Weiss came to the conclusion that information processing by the brain has to be based on Landauer’s principle. In 2008 this has been empirically confirmed by a group of neurobiologists.,,, Landauer’s Principle has also been used as the foundation for a new theory of dark energy, proposed by Gough (2008).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L....._principleThis ability of information to “find answers” in a computer without ever, theoretically, consuming energy strongly suggests that the answers/truth already exist in reality, and in fact, when taken to its logical conclusion, is very suggestive that the “truth of Logos (John 1:1)” is ultimately the foundation of reality itself.Michael Denton – Mathematical Truths Are Transcendent And Beautiful – videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3zcJfcdAyEEuler’s Number – God Created Mathematics – videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IEb1gTRo74This related website has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages:http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/John 1:1-3In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.(of note: “Word” in Greek is “Logos”, and is the root word from which we get our word “Logic”)

It's the same damn thing, with Youtube links!

--------------I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moronAgain "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio